Rhetoric

One of the defining characteristics of rhetorical scholarship in Communication Studies is its investment in, and critique of, the concept of citizenship. Growing alongside the land-grant university system, the discipline once known as Speech focused primarily on training students in the practices of eloquent citizenship. More recent scholarship in the field, while still connected to this founding impulse in important ways, also deploys the tools of rhetorical criticism and cultural studies to critique the normative foundations of citizenship.

Drawing from a wide range of readings in rhetorical studies and other fields, this seminar engages citizenship as an object of rhetorical critique. Throughout the semester, we shall address several questions, including: What is the role of rhetoric in constituting norms of citizenship? What is the/a public? To what extent does the notion of a public sphere enhance or limit our understanding of citizenship? What is the role of marginalized communities in traditional models of citizenship?

Countering critical suggestions that the Squire is such a bad poet that Chaucer is “making fun” of him, this essay argues that Chaucer-as-Squire dramatizes rhetorically sophisticated optimism as he attempts to overcome the “doubleness” that characterizes language in the post-lapsarian world. Paradoxically, the Squire endeavors to resolve this duplicity by multiplying instances of literary techniques such as imitatio, inexpressibility topoi, and translatio.

Nietzsche has often been criticised as a herald of egoism and hatred; his philosophy has been used for war propaganda by various parties at different times; and Nietzsche's concept of the 'Übermensch' and his use of the distinction between masters and slaves in describing the fate of humanity have been received by many as wrong and outright appalling. Perhaps this common view of Nietzsche and his philosophy has also partly been strengthened by the often elitist attitude which many readers of his works have tended to display. And perhaps such an attitude is indeed in line with much of what Nietzsche wanted to achieve. It can certainly appear to be, only all too easily. In this paper, I shall instead suggest seeing Nietzsche's fight for a stronger humanity as this first and foremost: a fight for humanity, an expression of love and the promotion of self-love. I shall further try to argue that Nietzsche's frequently employed imagery of war and fight does not stand in opposition to this interest but rather forms part of his elaborate writing technique the understanding of which, it seems to me, must be at the heart of any thorough understanding of Nietzsche's philosophy.

Thomas W. Benson.  "Killer Media: Technology, Communication Theory, and the First Amendment." In Martin J. Medhurst and Thomas W. Benson, eds.  Rhetorical Dimensions in Media: A Critical Casebook, 2d ed.  (Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt, 1991), 378-397.

The ‘student debt bubble’ is an ideograph referring to the growing imbalance between the costs of higher education and the capacity of students to shoulder increasing debt burdens. This unsustainable condition is constructed by numerous stakeholders, who have dramatically resituated risks and rewards in higher education. The resulting debt bubble has multiple outcomes, including incremental efforts for reform at the federal level, ideological speculation by neoliberal bloggers, and vituperative assaults on higher education by state and local politicians. Following Kenneth Burke, we isolate the student debt bubble as network and rhetoric of motives.

Nicholas of Cusa left an impressive corpus of sermons. There are strong links between his sermons and his doctrine of surmises (conjectures).  Sermon and surmise are both ways of approaching the truth. The paper tries to highlight these links  more explicitly

The article critiques the use of historical analogies for rhetorical purposes by political leaders. It argues that their choices are often simplistic and banal, reflecting poorly on them whilst demonstrating the lack of faith they have in their publics. It argues that analogies should be employed more judiciously, based on a more optimistic view of the publics they are trying to persuade.

Rastall’s paper ‘Small Model Languages as Tools for Reflection’ observes that when linguistic models fall short of an accurate representation of language, this offers a rare opportunity to question assumptions and observe linguistic facts. The only reason a model’s proponents might be distressed when a model is proven inadequate is if they harboured the illusion that the model was an accurate representation of language production, or even of cognition. As Rastall points out, no model can make this claim. Every model is necessarily an imperfect representation of reality.

Paul Rastall’s small models can be understood in a semiotic framework, as functions relating signifiers (‘forms’) to signifieds (‘meanings’): forms of semiosis. If different properties of language are modeled as semiosic components in this sense, it is possible to heuristically use the linguist Louis Hjelmslev’s principle of embedding of  semioses to identify distinct minimal functions and study their embedding in a complex architecture, not only involving phonetics, grammar, and semantics, but also enunciation, pragmatics, and finally discourse. Both Rastall’s approach and this elaboration could support the view that (a) language is not one system but rather a constellation of subsystems.